urban.derelict:Our universe is the result of a supermassive black hole?

/this really ruins my plans for Saturday...

This was the first thing I though when Hubble showed that we weren't experiencing entrophy (slowing down) but that actually things were speeding up; so I thought "what could be pulling on something to make it speed up" and my conclusion was a black hole type thing of unimaginable proportions. Just a thought - who the fark is going to really be able to figure this out.

Why does it matter what started the Universe? What would constitute scientific proof in this anyway?

This whole scientific enterprise is meant to refute or reinforce the one or another of the various mythologies, the question itself being one science cannot answer. Why not accept that and get used to it?

The One True TheDavid:Why does it matter what started the Universe? What would constitute scientific proof in this anyway?

This whole scientific enterprise is meant to refute or reinforce the one or another of the various mythologies, the question itself being one science cannot answer. Why not accept that and get used to it?

"Shiat happens" and "Who cares?" work just fine for me.

"Why do we need science always asking these questions?" asks the Fark user posting on the internet on a computer constructed from futuristic plastics and alloy metals drawing electricity from a unified powergrid.

It's a good thing a few people before you decided "Who cares" didn't work just fine for them.

The One True TheDavid:Why does it matter what started the Universe? What would constitute scientific proof in this anyway?

This whole scientific enterprise is meant to refute or reinforce the one or another of the various mythologies, the question itself being one science cannot answer. Why not accept that and get used to it?

"Shiat happens" and "Who cares?" work just fine for me.

So we can figure out how to do it ourselves, so some super villain wannabe can "accidentally" destroy this one and start over?

Why does it matter what started the Universe? What would constitute scientific proof in this anyway?

This whole scientific enterprise is meant to refute or reinforce the one or another of the various mythologies, the question itself being one science cannot answer. Why not accept that and get used to it?

"Shiat happens" and "Who cares?" work just fine for me.

"Why do we need science always asking these questions?" asks the Fark user posting on the internet on a computer constructed from futuristic plastics and alloy metals drawing electricity from a unified powergrid.

YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. The subject is not what's IN the Universe, it's about what STARTED the Universe.

Science is a good thing; cosmogony, which Wikipedia says is 'any scientific theory concerning the coming into existence, or origin, of the cosmos or universe, or about how what sentient beings perceive as "reality" came to be,' is a waste of time.

E.g., theory that YHWH created the Universe ~6000 years ago does not make alloys and plastics impossible. Ask any fundy Pentecostalist, or use common sense: the odds are good that the guy who came out with the Bessemer process believed in God, Jesus and Genesis, as did most scientists of his place and time.

"Where does the Universe come from?" and "How do we make stronger iron tools?" are two entirely separate fields. (The former is a parasite on the latter, strictly speaking.)

And no, I don't see any real diference between "scientific" cosmogony and Creation Mythology: we're expected to take it on faith that the Big Bang is correct. E.g., the article is about how difficult it is to prove the Big Bang theory scientifically correct with the scientific methods they're using, and that other scientists can come up with other "scientific" explanations.

As technology changes so will science's prevailing theory on the Origin of Everything: in another 6000 years we might be taught this Universe was created by alien scientists from another dimension.

My point is that whether YHWH snapped his fingers, or whether something froze or exploded, or whether Cthulhu and 57 shuggoths created this Universe in a particle accelerator, is not only unproveable but even more it's irrelevant.

We obviously don't need to know origin of the Universe to know how to use what's in it. I'm sure even Sarah Palin accepts that atoms are composed of protons and neutrons with electrons revolving around them and that by scientific means you can make a bomb with some of them.

Get it yet? Or have you yourself found absolutely certain proof that the Universe was created in one way and not another?